[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Peter Elderson]

I will remove the black trail example, it is confusing because the
illustration does not show why it's wrong.

Best, Peter Elderson


Op do 21 mei 2020 om 06:42 schreef Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>:

>
>
> On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 12:35, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The exclusion of the black trail as a possible 'excursion' in the main
>> route is a judgment call. I'd be very careful about it.
>>
>> Why is one excluded where the other is not? Is that is going to be
>> difficult to explain in a simple way?
>>
>
> It should depend if it's signposted as part of the route or not, since
> this tagging only applies to signposted routes. If there is an excursion or
> alternative route that isn't signposted as part of the route then it
> shouldn't be included in the relation.
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200521/95bf18d0/attachment-0001.htm>